A new legal battle over firearm suppressors has emerged as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that suppressors are not arms and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. This claim was outlined in a recent legal brief filed by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson, stating that suppressors fall outside the constitutional right to bear arms.
This move has sparked immediate backlash from gun rights advocates, including the Gun Owners Foundation, which posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the DOJ’s position undermines established law and legal precedent.
Fifth Circuit’s Decision Sparks Controversy
This case centers around George Peterson, who was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor, a violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). When Peterson challenged the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that suppressors do not qualify as protected arms under the Constitution. In response, Peterson sought a rehearing, but the DOJ’s latest brief opposes this request, asserting that suppressors remain outside Second Amendment protections.
Guns & Gadgets: “This Ruling is Dangerous”
Gun rights activist Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News strongly criticized the ruling in a recent video, calling it a “dangerous precedent.” Yanis pointed out that suppressors are explicitly defined as firearms under U.S. law – specifically in 26 U.S. Code 5845, where silencers are listed as firearms. “If the DOJ gets to redefine terms at will, what stops them from saying that other firearm accessories, like scopes or magazines, aren’t protected either?” Yanis asked. His concern is that this legal maneuver could lead to the broader erosion of gun rights under the guise of redefining what constitutes a firearm.
Langley Outdoors Academy: A Troubling Pattern
Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy echoed similar concerns, arguing that this DOJ action follows a broader trend of government overreach. He noted that suppressors require a $200 tax stamp, extensive background checks, and months of waiting for government approval. “They want to have it both ways,” Langley said. “For regulation purposes, suppressors are firearms, but for constitutional protections, they suddenly aren’t.” He further questioned whether this was an intentional effort to sidestep the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The Legal Conundrum: Are Suppressors Firearms or Not?
Critics of the DOJ’s position point to the contradictory nature of the argument. As user u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt stated in a Reddit discussion, “Suppressors are firearms, because the statutory definition as enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president says they are.” He cited 18 USC 921(a)(3)(C), which clearly includes suppressors in the legal definition of firearms. The logical inconsistency is glaring – if suppressors are classified as firearms for the purpose of taxation and regulation, how can they simultaneously be denied Second Amendment protection?
VSO Gun Channel: A Broken Promise?
Curtis Hallstrom of The VSO Gun Channel took issue with the fact that this legal position is being advanced under a supposedly pro-gun administration. “Trump’s DOJ is saying suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment,” he stated, emphasizing that Attorney General Pam Bondi has already faced criticism for anti-gun policies. Hallstrom suggested that this move damages the administration’s credibility on Second Amendment issues, particularly given previous promises to roll back gun control measures.
The Slippery Slope: What’s Next?
The implications of this ruling could extend far beyond suppressors. As Reddit user u/bpg2001bpg pointed out, “Banning firearm accessories that enable or enhance the performance or function of a firearm is the same as banning a firearm. Unconstitutional.” If the government can declare suppressors non-essential, what stops them from targeting other accessories like optics, foregrips, or even ammunition? This case highlights the potential for regulatory agencies to incrementally strip gun rights under the guise of reclassification.
The Hearing Protection Argument
Gun rights advocates argue that suppressors serve an essential safety function. Suppressors significantly reduce firearm noise, which protects hearing for both shooters and bystanders. Some European countries, often viewed as having stricter gun laws, actually encourage suppressor use for health and safety reasons. However, in the U.S., suppressors remain heavily regulated under the NFA, and now, according to the DOJ, they supposedly do not even count as protected firearm components.
Public Reaction: Outrage and Legal Challenges
The backlash against this DOJ position has been swift. Organizations like Gun Owners of America (GOA) are actively pushing back, urging the courts to grant a full rehearing of the case. GOA has argued that the government’s logic is deeply flawed, and that suppressors, like other firearm components, must be recognized as protected arms. Meanwhile, the discussion on social media and Reddit has been filled with skepticism. Reddit user u/poopbutt42069yeehaw summed up the frustration and the absurdity by stating, “So by saying they aren’t arms and therefore fall under the NFA, that it might be seen as overreach for them to regulate them since they aren’t arms.”
Will This Case Reach the Supreme Court?
Many are wondering whether this issue will eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. While the high court has been reluctant to take on Second Amendment cases in the past, recent decisions like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen suggest that the current bench may be more willing to clarify gun rights. If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, it could have profound consequences not just for suppressors, but for firearm regulations as a whole.
The Bigger Picture: Government Overreach
At its core, this case represents a broader struggle over the role of government in defining and restricting constitutional rights. The DOJ’s attempt to reclassify suppressors as something outside of the Second Amendment follows a pattern seen in other gun control measures, where regulatory agencies attempt to bypass legislative processes by redefining terms. This legal battle is about more than just suppressors – it’s about whether the government can arbitrarily change definitions to strip away fundamental rights.
A Dangerous Precedent
Regardless of where one stands on gun rights, the DOJ’s position raises serious concerns about government overreach. If suppressors, despite being defined as firearms by law, can be stripped of Second Amendment protections, what’s stopping future legal arguments from targeting other firearm components? This case is not just about suppressors – it’s about the broader erosion of constitutional rights through legal technicalities. The courts will ultimately decide this battle, but for now, gun rights advocates are sounding the alarm.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.